THE P RTAL
January 2014
Human
Sexuality
UK Page 4
Anglican
News
from The Revd Paul Benfield
There has
been much inaccurate reporting on the Pilling Report, published by the Church of
England at the end of November. This report, named after its chairman Sir Joseph Pilling, is entitled
‘Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality.’ Its other members were the Bishops
of Gloucester, Birkenhead, Fulham (previously Ebbsfleet) and Warwick. Its terms of reference were
• To draw together and reflect upon
biblical, historical and ecumenical
explorations on human sexuality and
material from the listening process
undertaken in the light of the 1998
Lambeth Conference resolution;
• To advise the House on what
proposals to offer on how the
continuing discussion about these
matters might best be shaped;
• To offer a draft of the consultation
document that the House intends to produce;
• To keep the Standing Committee and the
House in touch with its work from time to
time; and
• To report to the House through the Standing
Committee by October 2013.
not a new statement of doctrine
It is thus simply a report to the House of Bishops from
a group of four people together with three advisers
(The Bishop of Birkenhead issued a dissenting report).
It is not a new statement of doctrine or practice by the
Church of England. Its key recommendation is that
• The subject of sexuality, with its history of
deeply entrenched views, would best be
addressed by facilitated conversations or
a similar process to which the Church of
England needs to commit itself at national and
diocesan level. This should continue to involve
profound reflection on the interpretation and
application of Scripture
Reporting that a small group has recommended
to the bishops of the Church of England that there
should be some facilitated conversations does not
make exciting news and so much of the reporting
concentrated on just one of the eighteen
Findings and Recommendations.
This is paragraph 16 of the conclusions
which reads
•
We believe that there can
be circumstances where a priest,
with the agreement of the relevant
PCC, should be free to mark the
formation of a permanent same sex
relationship in a public service but
should be under no obligation to do so. Some
of us do not believe that this can be extended
to same sex marriage..
There are a two surprising features of that
recommendation, even if one is prepared to accept
that there should be a public recognition of a same sex
relationship in a public service.
Firstly, public liturgy expresses what the Church
believes and, therefore, it should not be left to
individual ministers to devise what they think is
appropriate liturgy.
Secondly, we are not a congregational church, so
why should the PCC have a say in what the incumbent
does? He is not required to obtain their consent before
marrying someone who has a previous spouse still
living, so why should the PCC be involved with same
sex unions?
time will tell
It is important to remember, however, that this
recommendation has only the authority of those who
wrote it, that is three bishops and four lay people.
What the House of Bishops decides to do with it and
what the wider Church of England will make of it
only time will tell – the House of Bishops had their
first (confidential) discussion of the Report at York in
December